If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Ultimately something had to have created life, somewhere, sometime. The ID theory certainly comes into play at that point when you consider that we can't create life from nothing. My only point was that it wasn't created on earth, and we certainly aren't special in the grand scheme of things.

I don't understand your thinking on your last point. We haven't found life anywhere else, and as you just wrote life was started somewhere. Why not here?

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Evolution is concerned with how life forms evolve from other life forms. Evolution is the not the same as abiogenesis. If life got started due to the intervention of some divine power, the theory of evolution would be our best explanation to date for how that life has developed ever since that hypothetical moment of creation.

When I said, "And if life can't arise spontaneously, we obviously didn't evolve," I meant we had to be created to get here. Most people don't separate the two.

So both you and Kstat's problem is with the Bible's account of creation? Is that right? Or do you differ from Kstat?

I don't understand your thinking on your last point. We haven't found life anywhere else, and as you just wrote life was started somewhere. Why not here?

.....because the earth was most likely around long before life appeared, and it coincided with major events and changes to the Earth itself, all of which were fully explainable through science. Earth was originally incapable of supporting any sort of life, until it was.

Likewise, saying we haven't found life anywhere yet in the universe is like me never leaving my bedroom and concluding I'm the only human on earth because I don't see any people when I look out of my window, just houses and lights.

We can detect millions of planets, but that doesn't mean we can detect life on them.

As you said yourself, life can't be created from nothing. Actually, nothing can. So it stands to reason that whenever the universe was formed, life formed with it. It didn't just manifest via god magic. Following that logic, since the earth was around long before life on earth, it had to come from somewhere else.

There's no logical reason to believe in god magic causing us to spontaneously manifest on earth, other than really wanting to believe it. It requires a complete suspension of disbelief. As bearbugs made very clear, it's for people who would prefer to let a storybook do their thinking for them.

Last edited by Kstat; 05-09-2013 at 04:38 PM.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

And to be clear, Christianity is not on trial here. But genesis simply cannot be taken seriously as it applies to this thread. There is absolutely no science to support it. There isn't even any logic to support it. It's a fairy tale.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

.....because the earth was most likely around long before life appeared, and it coincided with major events and changes to the Earth itself, all of which were fully explainable through science. Earth was originally incapable of supporting any sort of life, until it was.

So why do you call the creation account a myth, that's what it says too.

Likewise, saying we haven't found life anywhere yet in the universe is like me never leaving my bedroom and concluding I'm the only human on earth because I don't see any people when I look out of my window, just houses and lights.

We can detect millions of planets, but that doesn't mean we can detect life on them.

Fair enough, but although we can't detect life on other planets there are still ways of detecting signs of life. Civilization at least as we know it is noisy, and we can detect noisy patterns at a great distance. Another point is if there was life created before us, wouldn't they know more than us, and be able to detect us? No one has contacted us, which would also lend credence to us being created first.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

I have no problem with the Bible's account of creation, on a story-telling level.

I like the Star Wars books too. I am not inclined to ask the teachers in schools to teach kids to speak Wookie though. I know that sounds flippant, and I don't want to be, since for all I know some relatively fine men wrote down the books of the Bible. The problem is that people have for centuries gotten all wrapped up in those words as being some sort of immutable truths that justify all sorts of beliefs, from women being inherently inferior to men, to slavery being justifiable, to the Earth being flat, to the Earth revolving around the sun, and yes to the Earth being of a certain age. Throughout history we have discarded many of these concepts because we didn't turn off our brains and decide to blindly swear to uphold some words on a page.

If you talk to Christians in Rome, London, Berlin, Dublin, and elsewhere you likely can have an intelligent conversation with them about evolutionary theory, which they generally accept. They seem to be incredulous about the inability of Americans to come to terms with evolutionary theory. Of course they are hardly our peers in scientific education, being more than a bit above us in that regard. Our peers, in terms of education of the general public before age 18 in the sciences, are places like Uganda, North Korea, and Iran.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

So why do you call the creation account a myth, that's what it says too.

There's nothing mysterious of prophetic about that. All it says is that the earth was made and then life put on earth. It would sound silly if you wrote it the other way around.

By the way, it also says the earth was created before anything else, which is laughable. Though I suppose a few thousand years ago it made sense for humans to believe that they were gods, and lived in the center of the universe. It makes no sense to believe that now.

Fair enough, but although we can't detect life on other planets there are still ways of detecting signs of life. Civilization at least as we know it is noisy, and we can detect noisy patterns at a great distance. Another point is if there was life created before us, wouldn't they know more than us, and be able to detect us? No one has contacted us, which would also lend credence to us being created first.

All life doesn't grow or evolve at the same rate. Life on earth grows and dies as the climate allows it to. The evolution of life on earth was moving along at a snail's pace until the climate stabilized. It's no different than humanity growing rapidly as a species once their diet improved.

Given that earth has been human-free for roughly 99.9999% of its existence, and we've come this far in such an absurdly short time, I fail to see why such importance is being put on the here and now. There may be complex sentient life well out of our detection, and there may be much older, primitive life in our backyard. All we can logically assume is that we're the only life in our solar system of a handful of planets.....in a universe of trillions of them.

Maybe in another million years, we'll have colonized the galaxy...or maybe in a thousand years another event will have wiped us off of the earth like the dinosaurs, and another species on another planet will be wondering if they're the only ones out there.

Last edited by Kstat; 05-09-2013 at 06:43 PM.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

Though it may seem an unlikely location to happen upon a conference on astrobiology, the Vatican recently held a “study week” of over 30 astronomers, biologists, geologists and religious leaders to discuss the question of the existence of extraterrestrials. This follows the statement made last year by the Pope’s chief astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, that the existence of extraterrestrials does not preclude a belief in God, and that it’s a question to be explored by the Catholic Church. The event, put on by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, took place at the Casina Pio IV on the Vatican grounds from November 6-11.

The conference was meant to focus on the scientific perspective on the subject of the existence of extraterrestrial life, and pulled in perspectives from atheist scientists and Catholic leaders alike. It was split into eight different segments, starting with a topics about life here on Earth such as the origins of life, the Earth’s habitability through time, and the environment and genomes. Then the detection of life elsewhere, search strategies for extrasolar planets, the formation and properties of extrasolar planets was discussed, culminating in the last segment, intelligence elsewhere and ‘shadow life’ – life with a biochemistry completely different than that found on Earth.

Speakers at the event included notable physicist Paul Davies and Jill C. Tarter, the Director of the Center for SETI Research. Numerous astrobiologists and astronomers researching extrasolar planets also were in attendance to give lectures. The whole series of speech abstracts and a list of participants is available in a brochure on the Vatican site, here.

The event was held to mark the International Year of Astronomy, and the participants hope to collect the lectures into a book. Father Gabriel Funes, the chief astronomer of the Vatican, said in an interview to the Vatican paper, Osservatore Romano last year:

“Just like there is an abundance of creatures on earth, there could also be other beings, even intelligent ones, that were created by God. That doesn’t contradict our faith, because we cannot put boundaries to God’s creative freedom. As saint Francis would say, when we consider the earthly creatures to be our “brothers and sisters”, why couldn’t we also talk about a “extraterrestrial brother”? He would still be part of creation.”

Even with the discovery of over 400 exoplanets, the question of extraterrestrial life still remains to be answered in our own Solar System. It is a pertinent question for the religious and non-religious alike. Though it wasn’t answered at this most recent conference, the existence of life outside what we know here on Earth has an equal impact on the findings of science as it does the meaning of religion. This event certainly brought the two under the same roof for what were surely some interesting and fruitful conversations.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

This argument breaks down into two very basic elements. The people who are determined to quote the Bible will never believe in evolution or anything that contradicts Genesis. Facts and evidence are meaningless to them. The people who do believe in evolution have looked at the evidence in the fossil record and observations of life on the planet right now and they can see evolution at work. Facts and evidence do matter to that group. Some of the first group will bend evolution to fit in their religious views. Some of the former will modify their religious ideas to fit the facts of evolution.

No meeting of the minds will ever occur. The best that can happen is that they accept their differences. The world has already accepted evolution and rejected divine intervention except among religious fanatics.

The Following User Says Thank You to indygeezer For This Useful Post:

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

I add this because other article about extraterrestrial life seems to muddle the fact that the Vatican has declared that they believe evolutionary theory is wholly consistent with the Christian faith. I agree.

Christianity... is not best described by the “crude creationism” of the fundamental, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis or by the Newtonian dictatorial God who makes the universe tick along like a watch. Rather, he stresses, God acts as a parent toward the universe, nurturing, encouraging and working with it.

In his remarks, he also criticizes the cardinal archbishop of Vienna’s support for Intelligent Design and notes Pope John Paul’s declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis” but is “a fundamental church teaching”

He calls “mistaken” the belief that the Bible should be used “as a source of scientific knowledge,” which then serves to “unduly complicate the debate over evolution.”

This in my experience is a position now widely-held by Christians world-wide (with many Americans excluded from the consensus)

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-10-2013 at 04:14 PM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Some of your comments are needlessly inflammatory. At the very least they sound put-downish and judgemental. You lose credibility points for this.

Well, that wasn't my intent but this whole discussion reminds me of a few months ago when a former Presidential Candidate (Huckabee) said that the killings of 20 small children in a school was God responding to his being taken out of schools. You can't argue with this nonsense.....

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Evolution is concerned with how life forms arise from other life forms. Evolution is the not the same as abiogenesis. If life got started due to the intervention of some divine power, the theory of evolution would be our best explanation to date for how that life has developed ever since that hypothetical moment of creation of that creature or set of creatures. If life got started due to the intervention of aliens, the theory of evolution would be our best explanation to date for how that life has developed ever since that event. Or if life came from non-life, evolution would tell us what happened next.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about abiogenesis and nothing to say about the origin of matter in the universe i.e. the big bang.

Origin of Life and Evolution are lumped together in the thread title, suggesting to me that a lot of people (wrongly) think that they are related somehow. If, as I did, you take thread title to mean origin of human life/evolution, then there is a thematic connection.

Nonsense.

Abiogenesis and evolution are no not synonymous, no, however they are closely related. If the evolution of life represents the branches of the tree, then the origin of life represents the roots and base. More importantly, when someone claims that evolution is an ateleological (design-free) process, they imply that the origin of life was an ateleological event. That's yet to be proven, and in fact seems to contrary to current evidence.

If life was designed, as I believe it was based on the evidence, then any evolution is a programmed event. Sure enough, the more we learn about what evolution actually is, and how it actually operates, the stronger the appearance of programming becomes. It appears to be sophisticated nanomachinery and software all the way down, a finding which would surely make Darwin blush in shame if he were alive today.

On the other hand, if life was not designed, if a blind, intent-free nature just-so-happened to create life in some magical chemical soup, then there's zero reason to believe there's any design in evolution.

This is why the origin of life is such a crucial question, as I stated in a post several days ago. You can't claim that design has been refuted and then tuck your tail between your legs and run from the question of the origin of life, which is also the origin of the evolutionary process itself, which is what Darwinists all-too-often do.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

I add this because other article about extraterrestrial life seems to muddle the fact that the Vatican has declared that they believe evolutionary theory is wholly consistent with the Christian faith. I agree.

This in my experience is a position now widely-held by Christians world-wide (with many Americans excluded from the consensus)

My experience is that roughly 99% of people have no idea what intelligent design is or says, and typically speak on it out of ignorance, having been fooled by the obvious widespread smear campaign against it, or are, themselves, a part of that campaign.

Reading the above-cited article, it seems Father Coyne lives down to my experiences.

“... three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;’

Actually, it is, as per the very definition of the "theory," a definition which is used in many textbooks.

Furthermore, if he's saying that evolution is a guided, planned process of non-random variation, then what he's describing is much closer to intelligent design -- the thing he's arguing against -- rather than neo-Darwinian evolution -- the thing he's arguing for.

He seems deeply confused at best, and an outright liar for Darwin at worst.

five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal’s statement that ‘neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,’” Father Coyne says.

Ah, yes, the generic, "it's not science" bald assertion.

Can Father Coyne define what is science, why abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution qualify, and intelligent design does not? If he uses the testability/falsifiability argument, then I'll simply ask him two questions:

(i) How do we test/falsify whether or not evolution is a product of non-design?
(ii) How do we test/falsify whether or not the origin of life was a product of non-design?

If he attempts to give me an answer to either question, I'd use the same flawless argument I used earlier in this thread to point out his dumbassery and then laugh hysterically as he turns bright red in the face.

Any test which can falsify non-design, in either the origin of life or evolution, must simultaneously prove design; there is no middle-ground.

YOU CANNOT PROVE NON-DESIGN AS FALSE WITHOUT PROVING DESIGN AS TRUE, AND VICE VERSA. I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH.

If it's possible to test for non-design, it's possible to test for design. If testability is your benchmark for science, and you believe non-design is science, then you must also accept that intelligent design is science.

If it's possible to falsify non-design, it's possible to prove design. If falsification is your benchmark for science, and you believe non-design is science, then intelligent design is science.

You can't eat your cake and have it, too, folks.

By the way, when I say "non-design," I'm referring to any design-free origin-of-life-and-evolution scenario, regardless of the specific details; chemical soup, space debris, hydrothermal vents, etc.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

On the subject of the probability of life forming anywhere throughout the universe, Hugh Ross has one of the best articles I've read due to the fact that it actually tries to quantify the question with legitimate math and science, rather than going with the, "Gee, golly! The universe is just so gosh darn big that there MUST be other lifeforms out there!" pseudo-argument.

Of course, Hugh Ross is a theist, so that will give unreasonable people like Blue&Gold an easy cop-out for rejecting anything he says. However, every probability he lists, or at least the overwhelming majority he lists is backed up via citation; 322 total probabilities, and 258 total citations.

If Ross' science is to be believed, then there's no logical reason to believe in nature magic causing us to spontaneously manifest on Earth, other than really wanting to believe it. It requires a complete suspension of disbelief. As Kstat made very clear, it's for people who would prefer to stick to a math-free probability argument (who knew such a thing could even exist? ) rather than actual science.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Ultimately something had to have created life, somewhere, sometime. The ID theory certainly comes into play at that point when you consider that we can't create life from nothing. My only point was that it wasn't created on earth, and we certainly aren't special in the grand scheme of things.

It's the age-old mind-over-matter/matter-over-mind argument.

Is intelligence (mind) at the root of existence, or is it the unintentional byproduct of an intelligence-free, ultimately chaotic universe?

The typical answer is to plead to Darwinian evolution as the explanation for intelligence. That doesn't really address the question. That might explain how the existence of intelligence came to be realized, but it doesn't answer how/why the potential for intelligence exists in the first place.

Intelligence only exists because, for whatever reason, the properties of nature allow it to exist. If I were an atheist, that thought would cause me many, many sleepless nights.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

No, not unless every physical process that drove evolution was also a programmed event. Every volcanic eruption, every shift of a tectonic plate, every hurricane, every soot-producing factory built near yellow butterflies, every asteroid impact, every alteration in magnetic field, every tsunami, ...

evolution responds to natural or unnatural alternations in habitats that are unprogrammed and random. Evolution is only effective because it is also unprogrammed and random.

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-11-2013 at 10:06 AM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

The Following User Says Thank You to Slick Pinkham For This Useful Post:

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

As to proving that non-design is wrong, I fear you must have missed the first day in kindergarden science class.

Proving negatives in not in the realm of science.

If I claim to be an immortal shape shifter with magical powers, it is not up to someone who doesn't believe me to prove that my assertions are untrue. It is up to me to prove that they are true. If I fail to do so, all can assume I am a liar, absent evidence that immortal shape shifters with magical powers are everywhere to be found.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

. . . But genesis simply cannot be taken seriously as it applies to this thread. There is absolutely no science to support it. There isn't even any logic to support it. It's a fairy tale.

I disagree.

The Bible is not a science textbook, however it’s simple narrative is always scientifically correct.

The bible’s order of creation (Genesis the first chapter) is supported by science.
The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.

Geologist, Wallace Pratt says, “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.

Pratt, also noted that the order of events — from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals — is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

What are the chances that the writer of Genesis, (Moses) just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800!

To say Moses just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
-----

According to the Bible’s creation account all mankind living today descended from Adam. Scientists agree that we have a common origin. The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_..._modern_humans

“All varieties of man belong to the same species and have the same remote ancestry. This is a conclusion to which all the relevant evidence of comparative anatomy, paleontology, serology, and genetics, points. On genetic grounds alone it is virtually impossible to conceive of the varieties of man as having originated separately.”—Anthropologist M. F. Ashley Montagu.

It took science thousands of years to confirm what Genesis says in it’s opening pages. This is very easily deduced though. It’s common knowledge that everyone has both a mother and father. Working backward you would eventually end up with the first pair.
-----

Another point where the Bible is scientifically correct. The Bible says God created man from the dust of the earth. Science says all the elements mankind are made of are found in the dust of the earth.

Again, the Bible is not a science textbook, however it’s simple narrative is always scientifically correct.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

By the way, it (the Bible) also says the earth was created before anything else, which is laughable.

You are mistaken. The Bible shows the angels shouting in applause as God was creating the earth. So they obviously had to have been created before the earth. (Job the 38th chapter)

That aside, I believe you are referring to a misunderstanding of what the Bible’s creation account is actually saying. The Bible’s account actually shows the earth being created last, rather than first.

People make the mistake of thinking the earth was created before the material universe when they overlook other statements the Bible makes. Let’s take a look at what the Bible actually says.

Genesis 1:1,2, says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s spirit (active force) was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.”

Note the order the creation account gives, the heavens being mentioned first, then the earth.

The 2nd verse then starts describing the condition of the earth at that time, the first part saying. “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste . . . “

Note the earth was termed waste. Where do you think this waste came from? Just as a sculptor has left over material after creating something, evidently this formless waste was what was left after God created the heavens.

Before we go on to the next verse you need to know three things. The first being that Moses wrote the creation account in Hebrew, and from the perspective of a person who would have been standing on the surface of the earth. That makes a big difference in understanding the account.

The third thing you need to know is a statement made in the 38th chapter of Job. There God is questioning Job and asks him a series of questions about where Job was when he (God) was creating the earth.

At Job 38:8,9 God asks Job, “. . . who shut up the sea with doors when it broke forth and issued out of the womb? 9 When I made the clouds the garment of it, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it?” (Amp)

Notice the thick darkness mentioned in Genesis verse two is referred to again, and this time it’s described as a swaddling band. Swaddling is an age-old practice of wrapping infants in blankets or similar cloth so that movement of the limbs is tightly restricted. In context of what we are talking about this would mean the clouds are so dense they are like a swaddling band wrapped around the earth clear down to the surface.

Now lets read verses 3 and 4 which say, “And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”

Here we read God brought about a division between the light and the darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that he had started the earth rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, would both have periods of light and darkness. And it’s likely that the rotating of the earth produced winds that started disbursing the swaddling bands of clouds and thus the darkness.

This would be a gradual process, as is indicated by translator J.W. Watts: “And gradually light came into existence.” (Ge 1:3, A Distinctive Translation of Genesis)

Genesis 1:6-8, and 9-13, describe the 2nd and 3rd creative days.

6 And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. 8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day.

9 And God went on to say: “Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.” And it came to be so. 10 And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas. Further, God saw that [it was] good. 11 And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 12 And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that [it was] good. 13 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a third day.

Note that vegetation was created on the 3rd creative day. That’s an important point in as much as some people think the 4th creative day is describing the sun and moon and stars being created. However we find the description means they become discernible from the surface of the earth due to the earth’s rotation dissipating the swaddling bands of clouds.

Genesis 1:14-19, says, And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that [it was] good. 19 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fourth day.

In view of the description of these luminaries, the greater luminary was obviously the sun and the lesser luminary the moon.
Now you need to know something about Hebrew the language Genesis was written in. Previously, on the first creative day, the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ʼohr, meaning light in a general sense.

However, on the fourth creative day, the Hebrew word changes to ma·ʼohr, which refers to a luminary or source of light. So, on the first day diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the actual sources of that light could not be seen by an earthly observer. Now, on the fourth day, it’s evident the swaddling bands have dissipated enough that the actual source of the light could be seen.

It is also noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba·raʼ, meaning “create,” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb ʽa·sah, meaning “make,” is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.

Hebrew being translated to English is probably the biggest reason the Bible’s creation account is somewhat hard to understand.

If you think the sun and moon and stars were created on the 4th creative day, the Bible creation account would of course not make sense to you. You would wonder where the light came from on the first creative day. You would also wonder how the vegetation created on the third creative day stayed alive with no heat or light until the 4th creative day.

I believe what I’ve related shows the creation account in the Bible is consistent and sensible to Bible readers who actually take the time to discern what it says. Obviously knowing what other parts of the Bible say helps in it’s understanding.

That goes for the whole Bible, but some people read something they don’t understand or something that doesn't make sense to them and find fault with the Bible instead of earnestly trying to find an answer.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

The Bible is not a science textbook, however it’s simple narrative is always scientifically correct.

So you are telling me that...

the Earth really is flat,

the earth really is at the center of the universe,

the sky (firmament) forms a "roof" over the world,

everything in the universe has existed for something like 6-10,000 years,

bats are birds,

Unicorns are real,

dragons (fiery serpents) are real,

giants were real,

rabbits chew their cud and are thus unclean,

All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 animals per second! onto that 450 foot long boat!,

birds and whales appeared before reptiles and insects,

flowering plants appeared before any animals (plants thrived even before the sun existed!),

Adam personally named several million species (that must have taken awhile, even just for the 500,000 species of beetles!),

you can rid your house of leprosy by sacrificing a certain bird and dripping its blood on your house,

you can easily tell if a woman is an adultress: The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed,

and the Earth was formed before the Sun, but depending entirely on what part you chose to believe: The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day?

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-15-2013 at 09:27 AM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

As to proving that non-design is wrong, I fear you must have missed the first day in kindergarden science class.

Proving negatives in not in the realm of science.

Really bizarre statement.

First of all, science can prove many negatives with the same degree of certainty as it can prove positives. They may say differently during the first day of kindergarten science class, but they teach you otherwise during the first day of big boy science class. If it's detectable in any way, and we're capable of performing an exhaustive search for it, then we're capable of proving whether or not it exists.

Secondly, "proving something wrong" is falsification. If you're saying that science is incapable of falsifying (proving wrong) the claims that the origin of life and evolution were/are non-designed events, you're saying that neither claim qualifies as science. Yet, strangely, both are treated as such, including by you and in school text books.

Thirdly, I've already explained what I meant by "non design." I explained it at the bottom of one of my recent posts:

By the way, when I say "non-design," I'm referring to any design-free origin-of-life-and-evolution scenario, regardless of the specific details; chemical soup, space debris, hydrothermal vents, etc.

You can change the term non-design to unintentional or natural (as opposed to artificial), and the argument still stands.

The argument stands. If we cannot test for design we cannot test for non-design, and vice versa. Either both views are subject to scientific methodology, or neither view is. This is why the "I.D. isn't science... but abiogenesis/Darwinism is!" claims have absolutely zero merit to them. They're cliched talking points; nothing more.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

I never said that something cannot be proven wrong. Any testable hypothesis might be proven to be false.

But, as I said before, if I claim to be an immortal shape shifter with magical powers,

someone who does not believe me should not be expected to prove beyond any doubt that my assertions are false. They should not have to prove that magic and shape-shifting do not exist anywhere in our universe.

It is rather up to me to prove that what I say is true. If I fail to do so, or if I don't even try, then everyone can assume that I am a liar and am incapable or shape-shifting or magic.

with respect to evolution, natural selection, genes, DNA, etc. for those really unfamiliar with the whole area, I recommend this site for some clear, concise videos: http://www.statedclearly.com/

Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-15-2013 at 05:28 PM.

The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)

everything in the universe has existed for something like 6-10,000 years,

bats are birds,

Unicorns are real,

dragons (fiery serpents) are real,

giants were real,

rabbits chew their cud and are thus unclean,

All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 animals per second! onto that 450 foot long boat!,

birds and whales appeared before reptiles and insects,

flowering plants appeared before any animals (plants thrived even before the sun existed!),

Adam personally named several million species (that must have taken awhile, even just for the 500,000 species of beetles!),

you can rid your house of leprosy by sacrificing a certain bird and dripping its blood on your house,

you can easily tell if a woman is an adultress: The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed,

and the Earth was formed before the Sun, but depending entirely on what part you chose to believe: The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day?

Not to mention the part where there were people who were living for hundreds of years without dying.

everything in the universe has existed for something like 6-10,000 years,

bats are birds,

Unicorns are real,

dragons (fiery serpents) are real,

giants were real,

rabbits chew their cud and are thus unclean,

All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 animals per second! onto that 450 foot long boat!,

birds and whales appeared before reptiles and insects,

flowering plants appeared before any animals (plants thrived even before the sun existed!),

Adam personally named several million species (that must have taken awhile, even just for the 500,000 species of beetles!),

you can rid your house of leprosy by sacrificing a certain bird and dripping its blood on your house,

you can easily tell if a woman is an adultress: The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed,

and the Earth was formed before the Sun, but depending entirely on what part you chose to believe: The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day?

Oh come on now....what are the odds Moses could have gotten so many things wrong? What are the odds, like 82373611 to 1? He must have been getting his misinformation from somewhere...